Possible Prohormone Ban: Read Here!

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. H.R.207
    <B>Title:</B> To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the placing of certain substances on the schedules of controlled substances, and for other purposes.
    <B>Sponsor: </B>Rep Sweeney, John E. [NY-20] (introduced 1/7/2003) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <B>Cosponsors: </B>8
    <B>Latest Major Action: </B>3/6/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.</LACTD></LACT>

    ============================== =========

    The cosponsers have grown to 8 and now its in committee with the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security people! LOL! This is definatley integral to Homeland Security.

  2. Im sorry ww7 but was that statment saying that the prohormone ban is being handed over to homeland security?? I am confused.

  3. Please read this



    Copy and paste this into your browser. The PH ban thing has been kinda of quiet, well it isn't anymore. You must demand a stop to this. The only way to do this is via the USFA.biz. I URGE you to do as much as you can about getting the word out. It looks as if congress is attempting to join a PH and ephedra bill. This is not good.

    I know a lot of you have been kept out of the loop. I'll be posting other link/updates soon.
    Last edited by jweave23; 03-28-2003 at 12:17 AM.

  4. Thanks for the info Mike we appreciate it...

  5. Neither link works for me.

  6. There is now a forum at the usfa.biz website that contains updates. Quite a bit of info was posted during March. I'm afraid the news isn't good. Rick Collins plans to provide a weekly update from now on. Here is the link for the forum:


  7. Originally posted by Jedi Master
    Im sorry ww7 but was that statment saying that the prohormone ban is being handed over to homeland security?? I am confused.

    LMAO! Yep, it just got handed over to the committe of homeland security for review!

  8. Mike,

    Neither link works...please repost or email me the full links and I'll get them in there.

  9. Im sorry but what in the hell do home land security and prohormones have in common? Wouldnt the FDA be handeling this situation?

  10. Man...Land of the what? The FREE? It sucks when ignorance defines the constraints of Freedom. How do prohormones have anything to do with homeland security? Are they afraid someone is take a crop duster and spray One+ all over new york city and create a metropolis full of super sized stock broker freaks?


  11. I could care less...Id rather use real anabolics.

    But I see people here who bust there ass and don't want to pin and this ban might cause a increase in steroid useage. Its counter productive. Why not ban sales to minors.

    See thats whats ****ed up in America, smoking is way more deadly for you then godamn prohormones yet they let it flourish. WTF?

  12. Thats simple, the gov makes a TON off of cigarette sales. If it was a big enough markey, I guarantee you they would simply tax the hell out of it and move on

  13. Originally posted by wardog
    Thats simple, the gov makes a TON off of cigarette sales. If it was a big enough markey, I guarantee you they would simply tax the hell out of it and move on
    Agreed. If there was enough money for the govt to make off of PH's, this wouldn't be an issue, period.

  14. WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. lawmakers Tuesday questioned regulators about their oversight of steroid-related products sold as dietary supplements and sought information from two makers of weight-loss remedies they said were marketed for children.

    The lawmakers wrote to the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration expressing concerns that dietary supplement makers are selling products that may be more powerful than banned anabolic steroids.

    They said they are seeking information about what the FDA and DEA are doing to address the availability of pro-steroids, recently discovered substances that act similar to testosterone, and precursor steroids, which appear to combine with natural substances in the body to form an illegal steroid.

    The 1990 act that banned anabolic steroids does not specifically outlaw either substance.

    "Thus, some dietary supplement manufacturers appear to have exploited loopholes in the act and develop steroids that may, in fact, be more powerful that the ones Congress banned in 1990," members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote. The lawmakers said they were "concerned that current law may not be sufficient to empower agencies, such as FDA and DEA, to regulate or, when appropriate, ban these substances."

    The letter was signed by committee leaders including Louisiana Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin, the chairman, and Michigan Democrat Rep. John Dingell, the panel's leading Democrat.

    The FDA has been evaluating how to classify the steroid-related products and will respond to the lawmakers' letter, an agency spokeswoman said.

    Separately, the lawmakers said they were expanding a probe of a supplement called Skinny Pill for Kids. They wrote to Edita Kaye, president of The Skinny Pill in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, demanding answers to questions about the product's development and marketing.

    If answers to the panel's questions are not provided by April 4, "we will consider issuing a subpoena compelling such production and your appearance before this committee to answer questions," the lawmakers wrote.

    Kaye could not immediately be reached for comment.

    The lawmakers also asked Basic Research LLC in Provo, Utah, to provide documentation about the origins and safety of its product called PediaLean.

    Daniel Mowrey, director of scientific affairs for Basic Research, said PediaLean contains a natural fiber called glucomannan and is marketed for helping children ages 6 to 16 lose weight. A clinical study in Italy found the product reduced weight without significant side effects, he said.

    Mowrey said the company would respond to the lawmakers' request for information.

  15. The number of co-sponsers has grown to 8 on H.R.207.

    Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 1/27/2003 [VI]
    Rep Gordon, Bart - 1/27/2003 [TN-6]
    Rep Janklow, William J. - 1/27/2003 [SD]
    Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 1/27/2003 [NY-21]
    Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/29/2003 [DC]
    Rep Osborne, Tom - 1/7/2003 [NE-3]
    Rep Sessions, Pete - 2/25/2003 [TX-32]
    Rep Terry, Lee - 3/11/2003 [NE-2]

    There has been NO amendments to the bill at this time.
  16. A letter

    I actually received a response from a senator, only took about 4 or 5 months Very generic, that's what I expected though
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  17. heh, ill probably be receiving one of those to. i live in PA as well.
    have u guys heard of the "Skinny Pill for Kids?" or the "Pedialean?"

    i dunno about u, but i think that these are the ones that are biting us in the a$$, by marketing to kids, etc.

    if so, ill volunteer to snipe em out, and put an end to their business, cuz their just ruinin it for themselves and more importantly us, the responsible users.

  18. More BS

  19. At least he wrote a letter and and not a three sentence BS response! Things have been totally quiet on the other bill.

  20. i got two of mine back the other day. the one from Senator Rick Santorum said that since he is senate he cannot vote on the topic.

    the other from Senator Arlen Spector basicly just repeated my letter.

    i agree, this is indeed BS.


Similar Forum Threads

  1. What comes after the Prohormon ban
    By ironguru in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-11-2004, 10:15 PM
  2. whats going on with the prohormone ban
    By bigrich954rr in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-03-2004, 09:37 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-06-2004, 11:15 PM
  4. The Senate Is Voting On The Prohormone Ban June 8th!!
    By VanillaGorilla in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-28-2004, 07:12 PM
  5. Question about prohormone ban
    By Iron Warrior in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-29-2003, 10:07 AM
Log in
Log in